"Biden Deserves Credit, Not Blame, for Afghanistan"

[Sketcher]

That's an end-of-thinking platitude.

Do you disagree with Biden? He said it at least twice.

 

[Sketcher]

Biden's actions and results speak much louder than your own perceptions! We Americans deserve results, not tweets. Biden delivered. It's one reason he was elected over the great bloviator.

Biden shattered our allies' confidence in us with the way he handled this exit. He delivered the most easily recognizable stain on American honor since the fall of Saigon. He broke promises to stay until all Americans got out. He made hollow ones to support the Americans and Afghans that we abandoned via withdrawal. These are his actions and results.

 

[durangodawood]

Do you disagree with Biden? He said it at least twice.

Its not the kind of thing you agree or disagree with. Its just thrown out there because its one of those worthless things politicians have to say from time to time. It more like virtue signaling.

 

[rnmomof7]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...rves-credit-not-blame-for-afghanistan/619925/



I respect people who do the right thing even when it's not the popular thing. No other president had the courage to disentangle us from Afghanistan, including the Trump officials who strengthened the Taliban with their concessions and left Biden to clean up the mess.

I agree that no one predicted that the 300,000 man Afghan Army, trained and financed by the U.S., would collapse within days--even when we left equipment there to help them defend their government. And I put the blame on them. It is completely illogical to think that 300,000 American trained and funded soldiers with billions of dollars of high powered equpment could cave in a week.

I would like to see a little more of that spine in Biden in the future. On voting rights, on ending the filibuster---at least for something as important as saving our democracy. He needs to remember that the last president with his legislative experience--LBJ--was able to negotiate the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court shamefully shredded. LBJ enacted Medicare, Medicaid, and the Great Society.

And now, 60 years later, our society sure doesn't look so "great," when domestic terrorists storm state capitols and the U.S. Capitol to throw their weight around, when rogue governors thumb their noses at public health and threaten and coerce the school districts and businesses who care about the children and customers they serve. It doesn't look so great when we are the only industrialized nation without universal health care.

Our democracy has been under attack and there are those who would hijack it. We need a good legislative negotiator--but we need courage even more.

And so God bless you, President Biden, for your courage, for your willingness to take the heat from alt-right wing news networks. Keep it up.

The Soviets tried to bring Afganistan into their fold, and they could never do it.. We were never going to be succesful brining that primitive tribal country in to this century... Trump was always critized as a womanizer ..he was the only one with the courage to do something that would have set them free . My heart goes out to the women that will continue to be chattle property covered from head to toe so they do not tempt men, to the silencing and murder of professing Christians .. and yea the "demon dogs" that will all be slaughtered for simply existing ....We have become the "cut and run " a once proud nation

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Maybe this time around, we can listen to the people who attack us when they tell us why they attack us, and we can stop doing the things that motivate them to engage in terrorism.

Yeah, I remember some of those talking points before from previous go-arounds in Islamist regions.

While the neo-con talking point of "they hate us for our freedoms" is way off the mark...

I think the quasi-apologist (for the position of "let's just listen to them so they won't attack us) talking points miss the mark in a lot of ways as well.

Even if you take their explanations at face value for the reasons behind the 9/11 attacks
- "oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you. We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and trading with interest"

- "the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance"

- "for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples."

- "You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon. . . We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir"



Are we prepared to ban alcohol, homosexuality, casinos, and interest rates so that they won't hate us?
Are we prepared to adopt talking points that sound like they're coming from Richard Spencer?
Are we prepared to pretend that "The Hindus are the bad guys" in a situation where it's well-known that the Pakistani government was funding militant cells with the sole intent of attacking Indian forces and aimed as using forcible coercion simply because there happened to be a muslim-majority in a region of a country that's not an Islamist nation, as a whole?

About the only valid gripe on their list was the plundering part...


Defending the rest of it is tantamount to saying "See that guy over there who's got a bad temper and abuses his wife? Don't say or do anything that may make him angry...if you do, he might go home and take it out on her"

Let's call it for what it is and put some of the political correctness aside. Fundamentalist Islam is a terrible (and sometimes, dangerous) ideology, and they get mad when anyone attempts to intervene to stop them from doing the the things they want to do in the name of their religious conquest.


To use an analogy:
It'd be kind of like if there were a corner store, where a group of bad actors were running dog fights in the back, and justifiably, the police department got wind of it, and assigned officers to watch the location 24/7 to make sure it doesn't happen and bust it up if it does. And then, those bad actors got ticked and decided to attack the police officers, and claimed their reason was "their occupation of the corner store in our neighborhood"

That would be considered a bogus answer...they're not mad because there happen to be a few cops parked out in the street...they're mad because it's preventing them from running their dog fights.

 

[Brihaha]

Biden shattered our allies' confidence in us with the way he handled this exit. He delivered the most easily recognizable stain on American honor since the fall of Saigon. He broke promises to stay until all Americans got out. He made hollow ones to support the Americans and Afghans that we abandoned via withdrawal. These are his actions and results.

And Americans are ecstatic to finally have a leader whose actions speak louder than his rhetoric. Believe me....Hahaha. You are just sore because you choose to be. I'm disappointed with the few deaths that occurred of course. Yet why do you suppose the other three presidents did not end the occupation? Politics prevented us from leaving. Worry about the next election prevented us from doing the right thing. Joe put his money where his mouth is and fulfilled his promise. What's the saying...It is what it is. Trump likes that one so I figured you could relate. Peace

 

[iluvatar5150]

- "for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples."

<snip>

About the only valid gripe on their list was the plundering part...

That's the one I'm getting at. There are a lot of countries that like their vices - we're not really special in that regard. But there aren't a lot of countries who feel compelled to send their troops all over the world occupying other nations. If I'm some kid living in a small village in East Nowherestan, I'm a lot more likely to get radicalized against the forces occupying my province and drone striking my parents than I am at some rando halfway across the world who likes to get loaded at brothels.

 

[Sketcher]

And Americans are ecstatic to finally have a leader whose actions speak louder than his rhetoric.

I'll believe that about Biden when he puts real teeth into supporting the people in Afghanistan he claimed he would support, as he withdrew the military which was their means of support. How has he supported the Afghan government that the Taliban overthrew, women and girls, translators and their families, and the Americans who wanted to leave, who were not able to get on flights out of Afghanistan before Aug 31? He claimed he would the whole month of August.

Believe me....Hahaha. You are just sore because you choose to be. I'm disappointed with the few deaths that occurred of course.

Way to trivialize the suffering and deaths that happened so far, and the suffering and deaths that the Taliban and ISIS-K will bring about in the coming months and years.

Yet why do you suppose the other three presidents did not end the occupation? Politics prevented us from leaving. Worry about the next election prevented us from doing the right thing. Joe put his money where his mouth is and fulfilled his promise. What's the saying...It is what it is. Trump likes that one so I figured you could relate. Peace

Trump began the process, and shares blame with Biden.

What's the saying...It is what it is. Trump likes that one so I figured you could relate.

I'm critical of Trump.

Peace

Many in Afghanistan won't experience that now, they will experience oppression, death, and possibly torture.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's the one I'm getting at. There are a lot of countries that like their vices - we're not really special in that regard. But there aren't a lot of countries who feel compelled to send their troops all over the world occupying other nations. If I'm some kid living in a small village in East Nowherestan, I'm a lot more likely to get radicalized against the forces occupying my province and drone striking my parents than I am at some rando halfway across the world who likes to get loaded at brothels.

While the attack against us was more high-profile, other nations that don't have the same interventionist policies still have attacks carried out in the name of the aforementioned ideology.

List of Islamist terrorist attacks - Wikipedia


If there's a guy "Steve" in the neighborhood who's beating his wife and kids, and one neighbor "Tom" tries to step in and intervene, and another neighbor "Bill" keeps watering his grass and pretends he didn't see anything to avoid the conflict. Sure, Steve is more likely to lash out at Tom in a fit of drunken rage than he would be to Bill.

That wouldn't automatically make "Tom" the bad guy, per say.

Now, if Tom got Steve arrested for it, and when Steve was in jail, swooped in and helped himself to the stuff in Steve's garage and sold it on eBay, then sure, Steve would have a reason to be even angrier. (that's where the US makes our mistakes, we go beyond ethical intervening, and dip our toes in the "how can we make this situation advantageous for us" territory), but that still wouldn't validate the position of "Let's just stay out of Steve's way when he's doing his wife beating, we don't want to escalate things"

 

[iluvatar5150]

While the attack against us was more high-profile, other nations that don't have the same interventionist policies still have attacks carried out in the name of the aforementioned ideology.

List of Islamist terrorist attacks - Wikipedia

Scanning the list, I’m seeing most are in conflict zones or countries immediately adjacent to conflict zones, then US, France, and Germany, with only a handful of others scattered throughout. There are a lot of places that go ignored.

If there's a guy "Steve" in the neighborhood who's beating his wife and kids, and one neighbor "Tom" tries to step in and intervene, and another neighbor "Bill" keeps watering his grass and pretends he didn't see anything to avoid the conflict. Sure, Steve is more likely to lash out at Tom in a fit of drunken rage than he would be to Bill.

That wouldn't automatically make "Tom" the bad guy, per say.

Now, if Tom got Steve arrested for it, and when Steve was in jail, swooped in and helped himself to the stuff in Steve's garage and sold it on eBay, then sure, Steve would have a reason to be even angrier. (that's where the US makes our mistakes, we go beyond ethical intervening, and dip our toes in the "how can we make this situation advantageous for us" territory), but that still wouldn't validate the position of "Let's just stay out of Steve's way when he's doing his wife beating, we don't want to escalate things"

I’m fine with inserting ourselves in the pursuit of true humanitarian work - in fact, I’d love it if we took a huge chunk of our military budget and infrastructure and turned it into something like a giant Peace Corps. Imagine what the world would look like if we did with fewer carrier strike groups and fewer Army battalions and diverted those tens of thousands of people and billions of dollars to digging wells, or distributing mosquito nets, or building schools and sanitation systems in poor countries.

 

[wing2000]

I'll believe that about Biden when he puts real teeth into supporting the people in Afghanistan he claimed he would support, as he withdrew the military which was their means of support. How has he supported the Afghan government that the Taliban overthrew, women and girls, translators and their families, and the Americans who wanted to leave, who were not able to get on flights out of Afghanistan before Aug 31? He claimed he would the whole month of August.

The same Afghan government whose leader fled the country without even informing his inner circle? It's clear by now that the entire US government massively over estimated the resolve of the Afghan government and underestimated the Taliban's ability to negotiate their way into Kabul. For better or worse, both American Presidents made the wrong bet by relying on the Afghan government. Neither Trump nor Biden were going to insert 20-30k (or likely more) troops to start re-fighting the Taliban directly. Nor did Biden have an option to insert forces after the US government realized Kabul would fall. Operationally, it was impossible to move that many US combat troops into Kabul in that timeframe. There were no options other than to rely on the Taliban for security - and in turn, the US was subject to their terms for who would evacuate and for how long. So yea, that was the ugly reality in August...and despite all the challenges, many Afghans were evacuated. Now, let's see if the American people will welcome them...or will they become yet another political pawn of the Stephen Miller wing of the Republican party....

 

[Valletta]

Biden’s exit was hardly brilliant. It’s just not obvious there was a better alternative.

Withdraw the civilians first and the military last.

 

[RDKirk]

Withdraw the civilians first and the military last.

Which would mean the military would never leave, because the civilians can't be forced to leave.

The necessary political requirement of doing that, though, would have to be a public statement up front that the government of Afghanistan was non-viable. Otherwise, like every other case of nations not at war, there would be diplomatic relations and an expectation that the host nation would provide sufficient protection for visiting citizens of other countries.

For instance, even during the worst periods of the Cold War, the US maintained a diplomatic presence and American citizens were able to work and live in the Soviet Union....without American military protection.

That has been the way of international diplomatic relations for thousands of years--it's even mentioned in the Old Testament.

So to "Withdraw the civilians first and the military last," the US would first have to disavow the government of Afghanistan. That would be a tough, tough thing to do after having been there 20 years. Then the armchair quarterbacks would claim the US predicated the fall of the government by that very action.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I’m fine with inserting ourselves in the pursuit of true humanitarian work - in fact, I’d love it if we took a huge chunk of our military budget and infrastructure and turned it into something like a giant Peace Corps. Imagine what the world would look like if we did with fewer carrier strike groups and fewer Army battalions and diverted those tens of thousands of people and billions of dollars to digging wells, or distributing mosquito nets, or building schools and sanitation systems in poor countries.

I'd be completely on board with that for regions in South America, certain parts of Africa, and certain parts of Southeast Asia. (where the poverty and economic turmoil isn't being driven solely by clinging to an ideology that most of the civilized world detests)

However, for the Middle East, doing the things you mention won't solve a lot of what's causing their problems. We could build as many schools as we wanted in certain parts of that region, and the moment we let girls attend is going to be at odds with the ideology of a lot of fundamentalists there, and is going to draw backlash.

It should be noted, that a lot of what caused the current economic crises in that area are things outside of any of our interventionism. Places like Afghanistan and Lebanon didn't always look like they do now.

Much of the origins of their economic woes lay with the underlying idea that many other countries don't want to do business with (and be buddy-buddy with) a group of people who turn these kinds of societies:

Into this type:

CNN has an interesting slide show showing the transition
Unveiled: Afghan women past and present

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'd be completely on board with that for regions in South America, certain parts of Africa, and certain parts of Southeast Asia. (where the poverty and economic turmoil isn't being driven solely by clinging to an ideology that most of the civilized world detests)

However, for the Middle East, doing the things you mention won't solve a lot of what's causing their problems. We could build as many schools as we wanted in certain parts of that region, and the moment we let girls attend is going to be at odds with the ideology of a lot of fundamentalists there, and is going to draw backlash.

It should be noted, that a lot of what caused the current economic crises in that area are things outside of any of our interventionism. Places like Afghanistan and Lebanon didn't always look like they do now.

Much of the origins of their economic woes lay with the underlying idea that many other countries don't want to do business with (and be buddy-buddy with) a group of people who turn these kinds of societies:

View attachment 305294


Into this type:

CNN has an interesting slide show showing the transition
Unveiled: Afghan women past and present

I don't know that I'd hold interventionism blameless in all of those developments (though the US isn't the only culprit). According to that slideshow, the shift in Afghanistan coincided with the Russian withdrawal. In Iran, the Ayatollah's regime came about when the people deposed the Shah that we installed. From what I understand about Lebanon, their troubles mostly related to spillover from first the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (which could be argued as a consequence of British meddling) and then later the Syrian civil war.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't know that I'd hold interventionism blameless in all of those developments (though the US isn't the only culprit). According to that slideshow, the shift in Afghanistan coincided with the Russian withdrawal. In Iran, the Ayatollah's regime came about when the people deposed the Shah that we installed. From what I understand about Lebanon, their troubles mostly related to spillover from first the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (which could be argued as a consequence of British meddling) and then later the Syrian civil war.

My prejudice, based on evidence seen, is that Muslims will vote to go back to the 1500s whenever they get the chance to do so.

However, it's also true that such things appear mostly to happen when oppressive regimes are overturned...and it usually takes a radicalized force to overturn an oppressive regime. (An oppressive regime might be Western-minded, however, like the Shah of Iran...and still oppressive.)

But it still seems that given the freedom to vote, Muslims vote to go back in time.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

OP: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Strathos]

OP: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

What a persuasive argument.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

What a persuasive argument.

Yeah well I’m still catching my breath. I spit my drink when I read the OP.

 

[Strathos]

Yeah well I’m still catching my breath. I spit my drink when I read the OP.

Careful you don't get any on your keyboard.